June 18, 2005
To Spite Their Face
I’m an amateur photographer. It’s one of the few hobbies I’ve been consistent to, having inherited my father’s old Camera. (He was a crime photographer for a police department and did weddings on the side). I read some books, have taken a class or two. I learned how to develop B&W film. Any semi-serious photographer will tell you that, to get really good pictures, you have to shoot a lot of film. Then, analyze the negatives, create contact sheets, and figure out which photos went right.
Recently, I decided I wanted to move up to a semi-pro digital, so I bought the new Rebel Xt, and it saves me from film. When I have free time, I wander the city and take shots. Many of my shots are poor, some are good – and get posted to my blog (eyes right) and a few times I get something I like very much. Those I print out, usually via Walgreen’s or some place.
The point?
Apparently, as digital cameras become more powerful and affordable, places like Wal-mart are sometimes refusing to print out images that look ‘too good’, fearing they are scans of ‘professional’ works.
While I would love to blame the retailers, apparently photographers in the past have successfully sued film developers who ‘should have known’ that the pictures they were allowing to be developed weren’t owned by the person developing them.
This reminds me an awful lot of the stance in the whole digital music fiasco. Rather than go after the person violating the law, they go after the middle person. Rather than go after the people, they went after the software providers.
So, now, non-professionals are assumed guilty of copy write infringement, unless they can somehow prove that they took the picture – which is difficult in the world of negative-less digital.
June 17, 2005
The Little Things
With the political realities of being gay in today’s society, it’s the little wins that count.
I wrote about Tina Burch back in December. Well, the Supreme Court of West Virginia overturned an appeals court decision that took a child away from her.
Which, obviously, is good news.
IVF, Natural Selection, and the Right
Tgirsch, over at Lean Left, had posted a challenge to Conservativesto explain how they could be against embryonic stem cell research (ESC), but not outwardly against IVF . (As I’m currently in the middle of IVF, the topic holds some interest for me. While I’m glad to know that I have the blessing of the conservatives, I’m guess that the fact that involves 2 men probably dials that blessing back somewhat. Anyway).
A blogger called right-wing-religious-wacko replied, and he utilized the same argument that conservatives use against gay relationships being unnatural. It’s all about design.
IVF, goes the argument, is ostensibly about creating life while ESC is about destroying life. Yes, the IVF process destroys some embryos, but that destruction is acceptable in the larger goal of creating life (and, as RWRW acknowledge, the destruction of fertilized embryos is part of the natural reproduction process, and happens regularily. A fact seemingly missed by John at Evangelical Outpost). The destruction of left over embryos, however, does not further to goal of creating life, goes the argument, so is not justified.
Which, of course, is pure nonsense. It’s a tidy justification for an already established set of principles that has been somewhat arbitrarily arrived at. Let me explore things further:
First of all, the destruction of embryos via the IVF process is not limited to only embryos what are implanted and fail to take. Many eggs are harvested and fertilized, and if they are not used, there are generally 3 options available. 1. Keep them frozen forever. 2. Donate them to another couple or 3. Destroy them.
Now, certainly, many conservatives are proponents of the ‘donate’ option (Remember the snowflakes). And, honestly, if people want to donate them this way, more power to them. However, this is not a desirable option for many couples, for a myriad of reasons. And, while they may support donation, I haven’t heard any conservatives call for a ban on IVF for people who won’t donate extra embryos. Which brings us to the other two options.
Freeze or Destruction are, essentially, the same option. Why? Well, money mostly. Fertility clinics don’t keep your eggs frozen for free. (We’re paying 800 a year to have ours kept frozen). Eventually, either by choice or death, the owners will stop paying and the clinics will then have to destroy them. It just takes longer. Now, some couples (like my partner and I) have every intention of using all our embryos. However, there is a lot to balance, and some couples may choose not to go through another cycle (which is expensive, emotional, and involves a lot of injections) for a single embryo.
ESC people are saying – If they’re going to be destroyed anyway why not use them for ESC? Which leads us to the second flaw in the above argument. It fails to recognize that ESC is about the possibility to preserve life. If destruction of embryos for the chance to create life is morally allowable, why is the chance to preserve life not allowable?
Because it has been decided that ESC is not desired, and they need to justify why.
Wacko! said (at June 17, 2005 07:36 PM):
"If they’re going to be destroyed anyway why not use them for ESC?"
That's a slippery slope argument. Pro-lifers, such as myself, would prefer abortion to be outlawed - hence, the destruction of embryos too should be outlawed. That leaves persons with the other two options you mention.
I would argue that fertility options should be regulated so that there are not excessive embryos created. I don't see why the technology won't come to that eventually.
By the way, there's some good related discussions over at the Family Scholars blog.
Henry said (at June 17, 2005 08:11 PM):
That doesn't really explain why it's okay to destroy embryoes for the chance at life in IVF but not ESC. Nor does it explain why any of this is different from the natural destruction of embryoes that happens all the time naturally.
tgirsch said (at June 17, 2005 08:36 PM):
A couple of notes. First, it's Joe at Evangelical Outpost, not John. Second, thanks for the linky love. :)
Wacko:
Um, wait a minute, slippery slope bad, ends-justify-the-means good? You puzzle me. :) Anyway, you start down that slippery slope when you doom artificially-created embryos to destruction (by creating them), not when you start debating the manner of their destruction.
Was Bush a ‘Do Nothing’ President?
Shorter Fred Barnes: Bush’s poll problem is due to the fact that he’s actually doing something. If he did nothing (like Clinton), then people would like him.
So, he was a do-nothing president for his first term?
Note That Quote: Savage Edition
From this week's Savage Love
The headlines should have read something like this: "Pope Condemns Majority Of American Heterosexuals For Private Sexual Conduct; Also, Gay Marriage."
Jeb Bush To Give up Governorship?
Rumor has it, he’s dedicating his life to solving every death in Florida, one at a time. If things work out well, he can expand to all crimes.
Future thugs will be heard mumbling “And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for you meddling Jeb!”
June 16, 2005
Can Frist diagnose himself with amnesia?
Frist today
Frist, March 17, 2005
Rick DeMent said (at June 17, 2005 11:21 AM):
You need a really good memory to be a liar. I guess Frist doesn't have one.
Henry said (at June 17, 2005 05:51 PM):
I'm guessing Frist was hoping the rest of us were lacking a good memory.
After all, who listens to senate floor speeches held at night?
June 15, 2005
Obstructionism = Not doing what I say!
Scott this morning (asking if the president’s comments hurt bi-partisanism).
Schiavo Update
The autopsy would appear to have confirmed everything the husband said. The brain damage was significant, and unrevesible. There was no signs of abuse, drugs, or any of the other abuse which he was accused of.
Apology from the GOP will be forthcoming, I’m sure.
I’m sure. In the form of a voice vote, late at night.
*****Update:
Think progress notes that that autopsy states that the vision centers of her brain were dead, which directly contradicts Bill Frist's 'evaluation' of her, which he gave from the senate floor.
Of course, Frist will point ou the difficulties of doing an evaluation based on a video - which, of course, is what made his floor speech so insulting in the first place.
Political Pamphlet
The ‘Will Hillary run in 08’ fever has spread to Condoleezza Rice as people speculate that she will run for president based on the fact that he has specifically said, she has no intentions of running for president – which seems to be the new way to announce your candidacy.
Her supporters call themselves ‘Condistas’, which is a delicious Mexican dish – with rice, of course.
Moving on to someone else not running for president in 08, Arnold Schwarzenegger had a little problem giving the commencement speech at his alma mater as the graduates booed him, and faculty members held up signs saying ‘80,000,000 could buy a lot of books’. Hearing this, of course, decent people will be forced to ask themselves ‘Schwarzenegger went to school?’.
From boos to boobs, Mary Carey, Republican Porno Star Extraordinaire managed to get a few laughs at Bush’s fundraiser yesterday. During a photo op, someone asked if she could pull the ‘booms’ back, as they were obstructing the view. She, of course, heard ‘boobs’ and hilarity resulted.
The other boob at the fundraiser was Bush, who thought that a good way to boost his numbers was to stump for frothy Rick Santorum, who suffers from significant popularity in his home state, and then go to a GOP fundraiser. The music talent was Swing band Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, which is Ironic as Bush, himself, is a fan of Voodoo economics. (pause for laughter). Anyway, Bush’s gem of the day was this quote:
It is fiery rhetoric like this that has the GOP so confident in his ability to lead them to another sweeping victory in 08. Apparently, the GOP, who control both houses and the Whitehouse, are using the political strategy of looking to the Democrats for leadership.
And, this week we have to great examples of how the GOP fosters it’s expectations that Democrats lead, buy telling them to shut the @#$k up. Earlier in the week, Chairman Sensenbrenner recognized himself, gave a 10 minute rant, then gaveled the hearing a close over objections and points of order, leaving the annoyed Dems behind, as well as the witness who was being heard. Then we hear that yesterday, Bill Frist (who also has announced he’s running in 08, which means he is), apparently finagled things to allow southern republicans not to have to cast of vote on the Lynching Apology measure, so they didn’t face any backlash.
June 14, 2005
Being Gay in Today’s America
Means being sent to reprogramming camp if you’re a teen.
Power of the People
I don’t understand why Arnold doesn’t just shut down the legislature, and send all his ideas directly to the people?
History of the Anti-Gay Movement
The Southern Poverty Law Center has an ‘intelligence report’ which examineds the history of the anti-gay movement from the early days of Anita Bryant to Today’s Dobson and Perkins. It’s worth a read.
"Our great nation is under violent attack from within," said Stephen Bennett, Christian singer and ex-gay minister. "We are now at the 11th hour, a point of no return."
"What's at stake here," said Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, "is the very foundation of our society, not only of America but all Western civilization."
"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry," said the Rev. Jimmy Swaggart. "And I'm gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."
Comments:
Pride
It’s that time of year again. Gay people gather for the spectacle, and Christian conservatives ready their hidden camera’s to get material for their next fundraisers.
I’ve often been bemused at the parades, as they are becoming a metaphor for the gay community, I think. Politicians wander by, then guys in drag, then gay families (last year there were two large and very muscular men, walking together with a baby carriage), then the porno floats, then school Pride groups, the walking anti-syphilis penis (who this year will most likely be replaced by Crystal, the anti-meth spokesperson), and so on and so on.
Like the gay community, the parade has become a mix of competing values – the sex and drug crowd, the family crowd, the political crowd – all with competing agendas, yet all drawn together for the same purpose – to annoy the anti-gay crowd.
LA, has decided on Paris Hilton as the Parade Marshall, which I find baffling. SF has a list of them (all better than Paris), including Ex-Football player Esera Tuaolo and James Hormel. The most interesting marshall this year, though, has to be the ‘lifetime acheiovement’ grand marshall, Jose Sarria.
In 1961 Sarria filed as the first openly gay candidate in the world to run for public office…
Of course, they also awarded Diane Feinstein the ‘pink brick’; award, which is the GLBT version of the political finger, which is really too bad given the broad range of better candidates.
We’re not sorry!
So, the Senate has given an official apology for not standing up to lynching. The main thrust of the bill is this:
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation;
(2) expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and
(3) remembers the history of lynching, to ensure that these tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated
Pretty harmless, right? Yet, apparently, some senators have refused to sign onto the bill. Chris over at Law Dork does some snooping as to whom.
I’m not sure which is worst, refusing to sign on to a lynching apology bill which does nothing, for fear of political reprisal – or the fact that there are still enough people who will note vote for someone who apologized for not standing up to lynching.
Comments: